Congratulation Youngsun !
Excellent idea and a LOT of work. You didn't leave me anything to add. J
I love the workshop because it gives a plus to strategy : if you are under attack you can quickly build some cheap/weak units to defend yourself. In case that you plan an invasion, you can prepare in time an attack force consisting of more expensive/stronger units. And beside that it adds more subtlety to the scissors/paper/stone system (cavalry/archers/pikemen or battleship/distroyer/submarine). This way a single military tech could give you the victory on the battlefield. Two tech = almost total strategic victory (Mongols had fast horses and the composite bow and that allowed them to conquer half of Eurasia; Alexander the Great had phalanx and his genius ).
Seriously, the limitation of overconquer should came from the others aspects of the game (economic = high cost of keeping a huge army, social = unhappyness of conquered city => garnison needed, diplomatic = all others payers allied against you etc).
However your idea for combat screen is too complex. Actually what you try to do is to include a whole separate game : The Operational Art of War I&II (or Steel Panthers maybe? - I didn't play it yet). I think that's too much for Civ3. Maybe in Civ4.
Phalanx vs. Tanks? If modern armor negates ancient attack then that is the answer.
Phalanx vs. GIs? Well...in WWI infantry attack against machine guns over and over again with huge casualty. In 1879 at Isandlwana 30000 zulus armed only with spears and leather shields wiped out 5000 british armed with the-most-modern-at-the-time breech loader rifle. In conclusion, size does matter.
The LASS system of Matthew Hayden is good and should be used.
Excellent idea and a LOT of work. You didn't leave me anything to add. J
I love the workshop because it gives a plus to strategy : if you are under attack you can quickly build some cheap/weak units to defend yourself. In case that you plan an invasion, you can prepare in time an attack force consisting of more expensive/stronger units. And beside that it adds more subtlety to the scissors/paper/stone system (cavalry/archers/pikemen or battleship/distroyer/submarine). This way a single military tech could give you the victory on the battlefield. Two tech = almost total strategic victory (Mongols had fast horses and the composite bow and that allowed them to conquer half of Eurasia; Alexander the Great had phalanx and his genius ).
Seriously, the limitation of overconquer should came from the others aspects of the game (economic = high cost of keeping a huge army, social = unhappyness of conquered city => garnison needed, diplomatic = all others payers allied against you etc).
However your idea for combat screen is too complex. Actually what you try to do is to include a whole separate game : The Operational Art of War I&II (or Steel Panthers maybe? - I didn't play it yet). I think that's too much for Civ3. Maybe in Civ4.
Phalanx vs. Tanks? If modern armor negates ancient attack then that is the answer.
Phalanx vs. GIs? Well...in WWI infantry attack against machine guns over and over again with huge casualty. In 1879 at Isandlwana 30000 zulus armed only with spears and leather shields wiped out 5000 british armed with the-most-modern-at-the-time breech loader rifle. In conclusion, size does matter.
The LASS system of Matthew Hayden is good and should be used.
Comment